> Harvey Newstrom <mail@HarveyNewstrom.com> Wrote:
>
> >Two PC's running the same program should act and be treated the same.
> >That does not mean that they are the same PC.
>
> But it does mean it's the same program. A program is what a PC does,
> Harvey Newstrom is what matter does when it is organizes in a
> Harvey Newstromish way.

Then I must clarify my goals. I don't want some Harvey Newstromish person
to exist in the future. I want *this* current Harvey Newstrom to continue
to exist and evolve into the future. I do not want him destroyed and
replaced by a new Harvey Newstrom.

> >I cannot destroy one and claim that I committed no property damage.
>
> Nor can you destroy one CD of Windows 98 and claim that Windows 98
> no longer exists.

Right. But if I destroy my CD, I no longer have access to it. Maybe
someone else has a similar CD, and the universe is not deprived of that
program. But I have lost my personal copy and can no longer use it. There
is a sense of ownership here. I don't want to destroy all my software just
because other people have copies of it. I want my software to continue
running on my machine. If we destroy my software of my machine, I can't use
it anymore. I don't care if someone else is running the same software in
another location that I can't access.

> >You seem to repeatedly blur the concept of "similar" to "identical"
to
> >"same" to "one."
>
> Exactly, some things are a distinction without a difference.

This is the crux of our disagreement. There are differences between copies.
The copy seems to preserve the attributes you are seeking to save. It does
not preserve the attributes that I am seeking to save. I think we agree on
all the definitions. Our goals are different, and therefore our acceptance
of the copy-and-kill-the-original are different.